Senate Passes DADT repeal

Today is one of those days where I'm reminded why I've spent years putting in so many long hours and sleepless nights trying to see change for the better. In an historic vote this afternoon, the Senate voted 65 to 31 to repeal DADT. As the resolution has now made it through both houses of Congress, we are watching a great step forward in the fight for civil rights.

The passage of the repeal is largely a result of the grassroots activists who simply wouldn't give up on their right to openly serve the country they love. With that, I leave you with the remarks of Sen. Jeff Merkley because I think he sums it up quite well.

"This is a victory for equal rights. And it is a victory for our national security as well. All men and women serving our nation should be able to do so without hiding who they are. And our nation is well served by utilizing the talents of all Americans."

Gerry Connolly on Repealing DADT

By now, most of you have probably heard that a DADT repeal passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 250-175. As we're waiting for the Senate to take up the measure, I think it's important to take a look at what Congressman Gerry Connolly said on the floor of the House.

Gerry pointed out several of the arguments that we've already been hearing. That our armed forces already serve alongside openly gay soldiers from other countries and that many of the folks dismissed from our armed services had skills that are extremely important to the military. In other words, we've already seen that allowing open service won't harm our troops. In fact, it'll help them by maintaining personnel who can help strengthen our efforts.

What I really want to draw attention to is how Gerry mentioned the financial costs that this discriminatory policy is costing our country.

It is estimated that American taxpayers have paid between $250 million and $1.2 billion to investigate, eliminate, and replace qualified, patriotic service members who want to serve their country but can’t because expressing their sexual orientation violates DADT.

Since the Republican leadership in Congress have clearly illustrated recently that they'll put the potential for any savings before doing what's right for the country, this might be the argument that needs to be stressed as folks are calling members of the Senate. After all, it'll give them a way to reduce the deficit at the same time that they are helping our national security and doing away with a discriminatory policy.

Sen. Merkley Expresses Opposition To "Obama-McDonnell tax package"

The only way we'll get progressive legislation signed into law is if the Democrats in Congress stand up for the values of people who sent them to DC. While we've seen some Democrats back down to pressure from the Tea Party, there are some who are remaining true to their values. Sen. Jeff Merkley is one of those Senators. He released a statement today speaking out against the "Obama-McDonnell tax package."

I bolded some of the sections of the statement below that I thought needed specific attention.

“I have very strong concerns about the tax proposal before us and cannot support moving forward on the package as it now stands.

“This plan will add nearly a trillion dollars to the debt. Additional borrowing on that scale should only be undertaken if it is critical to getting Americans back to work in the short term or rebuilding our economic foundations for the longer term. However, major components of the package – particularly bonus tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires – have been consistently found to be among the least effective in terms of job creation.

“There are some good parts of this bill – I strongly support and have voted for tax cuts for working families and continuation of unemployment benefits. That is why it is so disappointing that these proven and popular measures are paired with ineffective tax cuts for the very wealthiest in America. And it is even more disappointing to know that our children and grandchildren will be paying off those debts for years to come.

“I had hoped there would be a chance to improve this package to strengthen Social Security and ensure that we include initiatives that are proven to create jobs – such as investments in energy efficiency. But it is now appears that we will not be able to do that. Instead, what we have here is the easiest compromise, but it is far from the best. And it will continue too many of the policies that drove our nation into record debt even while middle class families lost homes, jobs and savings.

“I cannot support legislation that will do so little to create jobs and help working families, yet cost our nation so much.”

Video: Lawsuit Filed Challenging Cathie Black's Appointment as Schools Chancellor

Under Mayor Bloomberg's leadership, New York City has moved towards mayoral control and has become home to many charter schools. In other words, they are taking control of public education away from public accountability in favor of policies that favor coorporations. That can be seen in the appointment of Cathie Black as Schools Commissioner despite her lack of experience in the education field.

For those who have noticed how the corporate interests benefit from charter schools, it shouldn't be too surprising that under Bloomberg's leadership we now see a person appointed Schools Commissioner whose background is as a CEO of a publishing company. Parents, teachers, and community members, however, are simply going to let this appointment go through without fighting back.

In NYC, the Chancellor must have a Master's Degree and/or a certain amount of teacher experience. Since Black doesn't have any, she had to receive a waiver. She did receive one from the state Education Commissioner, but a lawsuit has now been filed that claims she received it illegally. The following video is from a press conference that was held discussing the lawsuit.

Connolly to Be At White House for Signing of Telework Improvement Act

Anyone who has tried to drive in the DC area knows that traffic is absolutely horrendous. I know several people who have actually moved away from the region citing the traffic as one of the major factors in their decision to leave. That is why I was pleased to see that one of the things Gerry Connolly did during his first term in Congress was co-sponsor the Telework Improvement Act, which would make it easier for federal employees to telecommute. Later this afternoon (at about 1:45), Connolly will be at the White House as Obama signs the bill into law.

Connolly had done a lot of work to increase the use of telecommuting at the local level during his time on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, so it shouldn't be surprising that he was a fierce advocate for the issue on the federal level. Just some of the changes that we'll be seeing is that there will now be senior-level employees in every federal agency that is suppose to implement telework, makes telework a key element of work response after things such as big snow storms (cause everyone knows DC tends to shut down when there's even the forecast of snow), and will have a study implemented to ensure the productiveness of telecommuting.

“There is no workforce on the planet that lends itself better to Telework, yet the federal government lags behind the private sector and local governments in implementing this common sense program. This legislation will change that and prepare the federal government for the future,” Connolly said.

“We can get people out of their cars and increase productivity at the same time with a robust federal telework program,” Connolly said. “We saw the benefits earlier this year during the back-to-back snowstorms when federal workers who teleworked while the federal government shut down for four-and-a-half days reduced productivity costs by $30 million a day.”

While this legislation has some economic benefits and will reduce traffic in the DC area, there are also environmental benefits as well. Having less cars on the road obviously results in less carbon emissions being put into the air. It won't solve all our problems, but is definitely a step in the right direction.

Rachel Maddow Explains Why Tax Compromise Was Bad Deal

There's been a lot of discussion about how Obama called out the left during his press conference about the tax compromise. While that deserves attention because it represents a lot of what's wrong with the White House messaging, it's also important for us to focus on how the compromise actually wasn't much of a compromise. In fact, it's basically what the Republicans have been advocating for all along.

In the segment posted below, Rachel Maddow highlights why this deal wasn't really a compromise.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

City Schools Partnership with Charter Schools Represents Disturbing Trend

With the movie “Waiting for Superman” out in theaters, there’s been a lot of talk about charter schools. This is especially the case in Rochester, where everybody agrees that the local school district needs to improve. After all, it’s unacceptable for the district to have a graduation rate of under 50%. While there are some positive things that can be taken away from charter schools, they still represent a trend of privatizing education even though it definitely doesn’t guarantee better results and takes resources away from public schools.

In Rochester, the idea of having public funds go to charter schools is part of a larger trend of the public having less input in their local schools. After all, the private boards of these charter schools won’t have much public accountability much like how Mayor Duffy’s mayoral control proposal would result in the public having less input on those administering our schools. That is why there have been a lot of people expressing concern over the Rochester City School district’s decision to enter into a partnership with local charter schools.

Much like mayoral control is something that’s being pushed at the national level through people like Education Secretary Arnie Duncan, this partnership between public and charter schools is being sponsored by the business community at the national level. This particular program, for instance, is being pushed by the Gates Foundation. In other words, there are occasionally good things that come out charter schools, this is part of a process tends to serve the business world instead of what best serves our children.

What makes this situation worse is the fact that many of our leaders have bought into “Waiting for Superman’s” argument that charter schools are the solution to all our problems. This allows them to ignore the fact that there are plenty of other things that need to be done in order to help our students receive a better education.

We don’t hear mayoral control or charter school supporters talking too much about ideas such as expanding the school day and school year, providing more after school programs, making communities surrounding schools safer, and recruiting and retaining qualified teachers. Devoting resources to these programs instead of giving private boards public financing to run schools, however, are just some of the initial ways that we could work to improve our schools. And that is why I am very hesitant to support the Rochester City Schools’ decision to partner with charter schools.

Rochester Snow vs DC Snow

When folks learned that I was moving to Rochester, NY, one of the big things that everyone mentioned was the snow. I'd seen some of the snow when came to visit one of my best friends who went to the University of Rochester a few times, but hadn't really seen how the city functioned in snow since most of my time during those visits had been spent on campus. Well, considering that it's been snowing for the last three days, we already have at least a foot on the ground (on top of what we had last week), and it's still coming down, I think it's safe to say I'm experiencing my first legitimate Rochester snow.

With that in mind, I wanted to take a second to point out some of the differences I've noticed between how Rochester handles snow and how the DC area does. First, the biggest thing is that people don't freak out. There was no rush on the grocery stores to buy groceries or talk about how schools will be canceled. A prime example of this difference is that in the DC area a snowstorm about the quarter of the size Rochester is currently going through would likely receive round the clock news coverage. Here in Rochester, the weather report might be a minute or two longer, but life goes on.

Secondly, I have been very impressed with how they handle the roads. Not only have the roads been kept in good shape despite the constant accumulation of snow, but they also have smaller plows that are constantly out making sure that the sidewalks are clear. As one of my friends pointed out this morning, "it's the plow service that let's me get to work without a car." This is important to me because it shows how an efficient public service that is designed to fit the needs of a community can truly be worthwhile.

Finally, on a lighthearted note, snowball fights are a good time. I've organized a couple of them over the last couple days. A lot of my friends up here are so used to the snow that they wouldn't have even thought of having one if I didn't bring it up, but it's been great to act like kids playing in the snow with folks ranging from college students to folks in their late 50's. Motto of this, enjoy what mother nature gives you.

Gay Partner of Fallen State Trooper Sues for Benefits

When I have conversations with people about same sex marriage, one of the big things opponents try to claim is that gay couples don't need marriage to get all the legal benefits that married couples receive. Not only does this not address the fact that it still leaves members of the LGBT community as second class citizens, but it's also simply incorrect and the case of a Highway Patrol member in Missouri helps to prove that.

About a year ago, Cpl. Dennis Engelhard died in the line of duty. Now under the state's laws, spouses of Highway Patrol members are supposed to receive an annuity that's equal to 50% of the employee's salary. In Engelhard's case, however, his partner of 15 years couldn't receive the benefit because the men weren't married. This is despite the fact that his partner was named as the beneficiary on other assets. In other words, the couple tried to take the legal steps necessary to protect themselves but that still didn't work since same-sex marriage isn't legal in Missouri.

Since this is a prime example of some of the discriminatory legal challenges that same sex couples face, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Englehard's partner. The case isn't trying to overturn Missouri's laws against same-sex marriage, but is instead actually focusing on saying that these laws don't prevent Missouri from providing domestic partner benefits. Furthermore, the lawsuit argues that not providing these benefits in fact violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution by "categorically exclud[ing] same-sex domestic partners from valuable benefits provided to similarly situated heterosexual couples."

Although the case isn't directly dealing with the legality of same-sex marriage, it will likely be closely followed by those who are involved with the debate. At the very least, the legal ramifications of the case will have a large impact on the lives of gay couples in Missouri and could influence cases being heard in other parts of the country.

Scott Brown Expresses Support for Repeal of DADT

Today's the 2nd day of hearings on the report on repealing DADT and we got some good news. Republican Senator Scott Brown has announced that he will supports the repeal.

"I have been in the military for 31 years and counting, and have served as a subordinate and as an officer. As a legislator, I have spent a significant amount of time on military issues. During my time of service, I have visited our injured troops at Walter Reed and have attended funerals of our fallen heroes. When a soldier answers the call to serve, and risks life or limb, it has never mattered to me whether they are gay or straight. My only concern has been whether their service and sacrifice is with pride and honor.

"I pledged to keep an open mind about the present policy on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Having reviewed the Pentagon report, having spoken to active and retired military service members, and having discussed the matter privately with Defense Secretary Gates and others, I accept the findings of the report and support repeal based on the Secretary's recommendations that repeal will be implemented only when the battle effectiveness of the forces is assured and proper preparations have been completed."

Now this is definitely good news and could potentially give some cover for even more Republican Senators to express their support, but there are some things that need to be remembered. Firstly, it shows that he supports the repeal but he doesn't say how he will vote on the cloture votes. This is noteworthy because the GOP leadership has been good about keeping it's membership voting together on these procedural votes. Brown's announcement is therefore definitely good news, but might not actually mean much unless he's willing to break with his party on the procedural votes.

Another important part of Brown's statement is that he mentioned having private conversations with Secretary Gates on the topic. It's not much of a leap to assume that these conversations have also taken place between Gates and other moderate members of the Senate. Based upon Brown's positive reaction to these conversations, it could be a very good sign that the Secretary is actively reaching out to folks behind the scenes.

All in all, Brown's announcement today should be viewed as illustrating how momentum is growing for repeal of DADT but that more work needs to be done.

WFP Leaders Express Opposition to Special Election for Mayoral Succession

With Bob Duffy just a few weeks away from being sworn into office as New York's next Lt. Governor, there has been a lot of discussion about how his replacement as mayor will be selected. Most grassroots activists are supporting having an interim mayor appointed so that we can then have a "normal" election process in 2011, including a primary and a general election. While Chairman Joe Morelle wants to have a special election which would likely limit participation, 7 of the Democratic Party's 11 Legislative Distrist leaders have expressed support for empowering the people of Rochester by having a primary and general election.

The leaders of the Working Families Party have now also added their voice to the discussion by opposing "calls for a “special election" for mayor of Rochester." At the heart of their letter is the fact that a "special election" would essentially disenfranchise voters.

"So let's be clear: A special election will disenfranchise voters, especially voters of color, by taking the power to pick the Democratic candidate out of their hands and putting it in the hands of a few party leaders.

It's not just Working Families Party members who favor a different approach. Many of the Democratic Party officials who would actually get to designate the democratic candidate if a special election were held also oppose it. Like us, they believe, that instead of picking our mayor for the next three years, we should appoint an "interim mayor" until November 2011, when we can hold a regular election and let Democratic candidates vie for their party's nomination in a free and fair primary process. That's how we elected mayors Johnson and Duffy. And that's how we should elect our next mayor."

As I've been holding conversations with grassroots activists throughout the city, I'm hearing more and more people express support for holding a general election in 2011. This is simply the best way to ensure that the people of Rochester truly have an opportunity to vet the candidates and select the best possible mayor. I'm therefore very pleased to see that leaders of the Democratic and Working Families Party are standing up for the most democratic (note the small d) process of selecting Duffy's replace.

If you want to read the WFP's full letter, it can be found below the fold.